0
Just the truth Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies
More on modals
0 Posted By: just the truth on 04-23-2005 02:00 AM 02 br
00 Subject: Re: Past Perfect 02 br
00 Message: Paco: 02 br
00 What you are (or the book is) saying is just about epistemic modals. Some root modals like 'will' (futurity) or 'can' (ability) have tense finiteness. So your saying cannot be generalized for all modals. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: These aren't separate modals. They are modals with varying meanings. It is precisely because all modals can operate in all time situations that it is highly misleading to call them present/past tense. 02 br
02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 I agree most epistemic modals are free from 'tense', though still we cannot use some modals such as 'will' and 'can' for talking about the event that happened in the past even when they are used as epistemic modals. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: This is not true, Paco. Every modal can be used "for talking about the event that happened in the past". Here's two examples that I've just made up. 02 br
02 br
00 That can't have happened. 02 br
02 br
00 That will have been Bob that said that. 02 br
02 br
00 Now, just for one collocation, "can't have been", googled, we see, 02 br
02 br
00 53,400 English pages for "can't have been". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search for will used in the past; 02 br
02 br
00 44,400 English pages for "will have already been". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search using shall 02 br
02 br
00 623 English pages for "shall have already". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search for the last "present tense" modal, may reveals 02 br
02 br
00 670,000 English pages for "may have already". 02 br
02 br
02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 Anyway what epistemic modals connote is only the feeling/though the speaker has NOW, or more precisely speaking, during the time the speaker is uttering the sentence. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: That's right, Paco, speaker feeling or modality, not tense. 02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 What I argued against in the previous messages is about your assertion that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning. Suppose a boy utter; 'I would save 50 cents if I didn't buy this popsicle now'. This means 'NOW I think that I can save 50 cents in the case I don't spend the 50 cents on this popsicle NOW'. This boy is not saying anything about future. It would be possible to suppose a situation he spends that 50 cents a few minutes later to buy some other sweet after he abandoned the idea of buying that popsicle. So I can't agree with your assertive saying that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: You're right, Paco. The popsicle is in the boy's hand, the money has just passed into the clerk's hand and the though is running thru the boy's mind NOW. "I would save 50 cents if I didn't buy this popsicle. 02 br
02 br
00 "Excuse me, Sir. I don't want this popsicle." 02 br
02 br
00 "Okay, son, here's your money back." {the popsicle and the money change hands} 02 br
02 br
00 BUT there could also be any number of scenarios where it is a future. The crucial point of all this is that 00 is NOT a past tense here, it can't even have a past tense meaning. 02 br
02 br
01 h2
02 br
02 br
00 Paco replied to the posting above: 02 br
02 br
00 By the way I did a google survey myself. As I thought the absolute number of hits will not be significant in this case, I surveyed relative values of can/could and will/would. Here I confined sites into EDU domain because it seems many grammatically illiterate people (including children and foreigners) are contributing to pages of COM domain. 02 br
00 can have done / could have done 153/69,200 02 br
00 will have done / would have done 984/78,300 02 br
02 br
02 br
02 br
00 JTT: I'm not familiar with COM domain, Paco. What do you feel is the significance of these results and why have you avoided mine, found in the posting above? 02 br
0-
00 Subject: Re: Past Perfect 02 br
00 Message: Paco: 02 br
00 What you are (or the book is) saying is just about epistemic modals. Some root modals like 'will' (futurity) or 'can' (ability) have tense finiteness. So your saying cannot be generalized for all modals. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: These aren't separate modals. They are modals with varying meanings. It is precisely because all modals can operate in all time situations that it is highly misleading to call them present/past tense. 02 br
02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 I agree most epistemic modals are free from 'tense', though still we cannot use some modals such as 'will' and 'can' for talking about the event that happened in the past even when they are used as epistemic modals. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: This is not true, Paco. Every modal can be used "for talking about the event that happened in the past". Here's two examples that I've just made up. 02 br
02 br
00 That can't have happened. 02 br
02 br
00 That will have been Bob that said that. 02 br
02 br
00 Now, just for one collocation, "can't have been", googled, we see, 02 br
02 br
00 53,400 English pages for "can't have been". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search for will used in the past; 02 br
02 br
00 44,400 English pages for "will have already been". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search using shall 02 br
02 br
00 623 English pages for "shall have already". 02 br
02 br
00 Another search for the last "present tense" modal, may reveals 02 br
02 br
00 670,000 English pages for "may have already". 02 br
02 br
02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 Anyway what epistemic modals connote is only the feeling/though the speaker has NOW, or more precisely speaking, during the time the speaker is uttering the sentence. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: That's right, Paco, speaker feeling or modality, not tense. 02 br
02 br
00 Paco: 02 br
00 What I argued against in the previous messages is about your assertion that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning. Suppose a boy utter; 'I would save 50 cents if I didn't buy this popsicle now'. This means 'NOW I think that I can save 50 cents in the case I don't spend the 50 cents on this popsicle NOW'. This boy is not saying anything about future. It would be possible to suppose a situation he spends that 50 cents a few minutes later to buy some other sweet after he abandoned the idea of buying that popsicle. So I can't agree with your assertive saying that "I would save some dollars" contains a future meaning. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: You're right, Paco. The popsicle is in the boy's hand, the money has just passed into the clerk's hand and the though is running thru the boy's mind NOW. "I would save 50 cents if I didn't buy this popsicle. 02 br
02 br
00 "Excuse me, Sir. I don't want this popsicle." 02 br
02 br
00 "Okay, son, here's your money back." {the popsicle and the money change hands} 02 br
02 br
00 BUT there could also be any number of scenarios where it is a future. The crucial point of all this is that 00 is NOT a past tense here, it can't even have a past tense meaning. 02 br
02 br
01 h2
02 h2
01 h202 h2
01 h202 h2
01 h202 h2
01 h202 h2
01 h202 h2
00 = 02 br02 br
02 br
00 Paco replied to the posting above: 02 br
02 br
00 By the way I did a google survey myself. As I thought the absolute number of hits will not be significant in this case, I surveyed relative values of can/could and will/would. Here I confined sites into EDU domain because it seems many grammatically illiterate people (including children and foreigners) are contributing to pages of COM domain. 02 br
00 can have done / could have done 153/69,200 02 br
00 will have done / would have done 984/78,300 02 br
02 br
02 br
02 br
00 JTT: I'm not familiar with COM domain, Paco. What do you feel is the significance of these results and why have you avoided mine, found in the posting above? 02 br
0-
Top answer
0 Adding "have" puts the 01 i 00 proposition (residue) 02 i 00 in the past, not the modality. 02 br 00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. " The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance.
- 0 Adding "have" puts the 01 i 00 proposition (residue) 02 i 00 in the past, not the modality.
- 02 br 00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree.
- " The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance.
- 0-
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
0 Adding "have" puts the 01 i 00 proposition (residue) 02 i 00 in the past, not the modality. 02 br
00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance. 0-
00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance. 0-
00
0 CJ: 02 br
00 Adding "have" puts the proposition (residue) in the past, not the modality. 02 br
00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: Could you expand on this, Jim
00 Adding "have" puts the proposition (residue) in the past, not the modality. 02 br
00 The only exception I've ever seen is in this sort of pattern: "You shouldn't have climbed that tree. You might have fallen!" The "might"ness (possibility) existed in the past, not at the time of the utterance. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT: Could you expand on this, Jim
00
0 The whole thing is mine. No quotes. 02 br
02 br
00 To expand: According to many linguists, a sentence with a modal actually splits into two parts - the modality and the proposition. Sometimes the word "residue" is used instead of "proposition". 02 br
02 br
00 "The neighbors may want this old refrigerator." 02 br
02 br
00 The modality is "ma
02 br
00 To expand: According to many linguists, a sentence with a modal actually splits into two parts - the modality and the proposition. Sometimes the word "residue" is used instead of "proposition". 02 br
02 br
00 "The neighbors may want this old refrigerator." 02 br
02 br
00 The modality is "ma
00
0 CJ: 02 br
00 By this logic, "The neighbors may have wanted this old refrigerator" is not a case of a modal in the past, nor would this be true of 99% of the modal + have structures. 02 br
00 Restated, the addition of "have" does nothing to modify the tense/time of the modality and everything to modify the tense/time of the proposition. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT:
00 By this logic, "The neighbors may have wanted this old refrigerator" is not a case of a modal in the past, nor would this be true of 99% of the modal + have structures. 02 br
00 Restated, the addition of "have" does nothing to modify the tense/time of the modality and everything to modify the tense/time of the proposition. 02 br
02 br
00 JTT:
00
0 Yes, the "example copied below" in your post is part of the (estimated) 1%. 02 br
02 br
00 Here the modalities are thrown into the past, not the residues. 02 br
02 br
00 In the case of "You shouldn't have climbed that tree", unlike in the '99%' cases, the meaning is "It WAS not advisable to do this: You climb that tree." The advisability of "should" has past.
02 br
00 Here the modalities are thrown into the past, not the residues. 02 br
02 br
00 In the case of "You shouldn't have climbed that tree", unlike in the '99%' cases, the meaning is "It WAS not advisable to do this: You climb that tree." The advisability of "should" has past.
0
Related Questions